is consciousness a brain chemical reaction?

as in the genome is found that all nature comes from the same organism (LUCA) is it possible that what is inside us may be acquired from other elements of nature, and it is disturbing that the neurones connectors have an important similitude in chemical composition of psilocybin, is it possible that generations of psilocibin use have generated these connections as we know them? is it consciousness a brain chemical reaction??

Dec 26 2011:
It is always possible to allow or disallow certain perspectives when doing scientific research or contemplation. Our own preset beliefs will be the strongest form to shape our thoughts. Supernatural or metaphysical explanations only mean that we do not yet have a scientific explanation or theory for some phenomenon. That still does not mean that everything is definitely explainable. There is no such thing as fact or proof but only the plausibility of being probably approximately correct. Some science has very accurate predictability but only in the very near future at very close range i.e. Feynman's Quantum Electrodynamics. More time and space bring about the effects of resonant interaction between observers and observed systems and we lose that ability, causing many of the paradoxes. The LHC might show a probable Higgs particle because it was built to show it. We don't know what it really shows. It can only show things that conform to a mathematical model language we know. We can not know things we do not have a language for. We could consider it wrong, spurious or irrelevant. Random Monte Carlo walks are therefore used to find areas of probable particle signatures which conform to the model.

Applying those thoughts to a scientific model of mind and brain we run into the same situation. We can not measure thoughts or picture mental images much as we can not see a Higgs particle. We can create a model (which we do not yet have) to describe mind and try to map it into the brain. But the brain is just a carrier and it is extremely complex due to its bio-chemical nature. The bio-electrical part in itself is utterly dysfunctional without the biochemistry.

Jan 3 2012:
No I don't think that consciousness can be replicated in the human sense, because consciousness is defined by what it feels like to have a brain inside a body. You can give it some other definition but then it is not human. We can make a machine behave as if it would have consciousness, but that does not mean it has it. In all effect, consciousness is an illusion that each person has about itself. It is strongly connected to feelings, which means the biochemical reactions of the body to its surroundings. The medula old-center brain has two parts and one passes bodily feelings to the brain and the other passes brain signals to create the sensation of being self-aware. So consciousness is not a higher-order functionality as it is really easy to lose it. The brain could still be connected to the universe in a larger energetic sense and handle the input intuitively.

How "conscious" is someone proves just as much of a concern as the question "Are we conscious," no?

So, yes to your question, but it is also more - it is "supernatural" in the sense sciences do not know at present time the entirety of the human "mind." To what extent is their a metaphysical connection between people - earth - universe? To what extent do our known body energies affect/effect one another without our brain consciously knowing, but just body?

Dec 22 2011:
I would go with John Searle on that: Consciousness being an emergent quality of a certain number of interconnected neurons. Like liquidity is an emergent quality of molecules under certain conditions.
Of course that is only what it is and not an answer to questions like what it means or how it works.
And I found this one (http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_wolpert_the_real_reason_for_brains.html) very interesting to answer the question how we got enough neurons for this emergent movement anyhow.
Which in turn might suggest that furthe advancements in human consciousness might be attained rather dancing than playing chess... don't you agree?

Consciousness is the perception that emerges from massively parallel iterative electro-chemical neural processing. That is - lots of different parts of the brain, processing lots of different information, doing it all very very quickly, all at once, and repeatedly feeding processed information back into other parts of the brain... all operating on the electro-chemical substrate of neural interaction. When your visual center is working in concert with your memory, audio, emotions, etc, etc... the real time, iterative concert of all these disparate pieces causes the sensation of consciousness.

But that's really as helpful as telling you that the functions of computer programs emerges from massively parallel iterative electro-mechanical transistor operations.

It's accurate, and captures some of the spirit of how complexity emerges... but at the same time, leaves out significant portions of the intricacies and details of how these complex emergent phenomena comes to be.

As far as psylocibin goes... that can chemically affect portions of the brain - specific neurotransmitters that perform certain tasks - which in turn would alter the way consciousness is percieved or works for the period in which the drug is active - but would have nothing to do with been the cause of consciousness.

Dec 22 2011:
It's not easy for the working mind to examine the working mind. But that doesn't mean it's impossible.

And flippant linguistic observations aside - the points made still hold; this thing that we feel that we call consciousness, is the feeling/perception/sensation that arises from the 'massively parallel, iterative, processing' of many smaller elements of the brain.

Without the context of the rest of massively parallel iterative experience... electrical signals from the skin indicating pressure and temperature (among other things) mean little. In the context of visual, auditory feedback, of temporal delays, as well as the context of thousands of other memory cues - the small parts of the experience of consciousness ties into and makes sense with the overall experience.

Dec 22 2011:
Nothing flippant in my reply, George, and no criticism intended. I'm just pointing out the difficulty of explaining consciousness without resorting to near-equivalent terms, like feeling/perception/sensation, all of which are aspects of consciousness. One unavoidably gets into a tautological spiral because the mind can only grasp its own function by reference to its own function.

I have no quibble with your mechanistic explanation of nerve nets in the brain. As a biologist myself I think you said it as well as can be said in a paragraph or two.

Jan 13 2012:
george: do you think the bacteria are there without knowing what to do? do you think functions of computer programs emerges from massively parallel iterative electro-mechanical transistor operations, well i dont, i see the simple, im not talking here about psilocibin, im talking about passion and evolution, and about a passion that makes us evolve, cientifics can say you where starts complexity, im talking about where is it driving us

Jan 2 2012:
You can be pretty sure that consciousness is going to be more complex than mere chemical reactions , which are most likely a necessary but not sufficient condition. Perhaps analogous to electric devices ,like motors:complex switches, relays, coils of wire, etc. are required, but knowing, as we do , a great deal about all this, even on an atomic level, but . we still would not have found out what electricity "IS", because it is in the class of axioms of science: elements so basic that they can only be assumed, undefined, as part of a coherent scientific theory . That's what science is supposed to do: find out how it works, on the basis of testable assumptions. I would personally be surprised if it turned out the "Consciousness" were not some kind of energy Field, analogous to electricity. That assumption disposes of a great many intractiable "contradiictions", and might lead to some new discoverires as well. At least it would get rid of a lot of teenage angst about "not knowing who we are".

Dec 25 2011:
If someone listed to you the exact percentages of every existing molecule within a car what would you know about a car? If you knew about cars, would you understand what he is about? If he told you, would you agree to his description?
Sometimes I feel like chemists or quantum phisicists are trying to pose as mechanics. That's the beautiful thing about the definition of emergence, isn't it: you can look at the parts a thousand times and you will still have to remain a stranger to the whole. Thank immanent omnipresent underlying complexity! Or something.

Jan 13 2012:
Good analogy about the car parts. How about a simpler one that is similar: Electric motors. Prior to the age of Faraday, someone seeing the parts of a motor,assembled. would probably not be able to guess its function. But if a Martian with a battery came along, and gave it a spin, we would see an "emergent" property. To call it "electricity" would not explain it, its too basic; it would be , and has been, relegated to the status of Primitive Term , in Logic. and Science. But that doesn not make it "complex", quite the contrary, it is so "simple" it can't be further defined. Consciousness may be like that, not to say that it can't have properties, like lack of "borders", etc.

Dec 24 2011:
Because humans evolved on a planet with a set amount of elements, everything that we and all other organisms are made of and function metabolically with are chemicals that are conducive to being stable in our environment. Hydrogen will always bind to oxygen when the correct environment is available much like how our brains have to use whatever chemicals are available in our internal environment to translate information into functions to allow us to interact properly with the circumstances we are confronted with. The only reason psilocybin ,or any other drug for that matter, effect us is because they are chemicals that are already existing in our brains used in much smaller amounts to produce emotional and logical triggers that signal threats or rewards in our environment. Consciousness is simply our ability as humans to interpret our sensory input beyond instinctual reaction and actually link new experiences to old memories as well as predict future outcomes or simulate experiences that haven't actually taken place. That is the main adaptation the frontal lobe gives us. If our brains used riboflavin in chemical reactions to interpret pleasure, many fruits and vegetable would synthesize effects similar to opium and would be consider drugs but our brains just don't happen to have receptors for that chemical.
Much like how catnip works on cats but not humans.
Consciousness is a chemical and electrical process. Drugs are like software for our minds. Our minds read the chemical data and try to interpret it but it's simply in the wrong format to be understood properly and is displayed in a distorted fashion upon our mental screen.

Dec 24 2011:
Without doing an in depth (or even cursory) research into every psychoactive drug out there, it would seem that the idea that all drugs affect our brains because it already exists in our brains in minute quantities is intuitively untrue. After all, it's possible to conceive of manufactured chemical particles that nonetheless are able to entangle themselves with our neurotransmitters.

Similarly, it doesn't seem like a huge stretch to think that some of these chemicals might occur naturally externally in the world, without formation or development within our own brains.

Also, I tend to shy away from the notion that consciousness itself is a thing which has a purpose - the implication is that consciousness is a part of the brain that can be located within the brain much like the visual cortex.

It's more that - having the brain able to cross-communicate between different regions of information processing is a fundamental part to having a brain that is able to specialize parts of itself in information processing. And that things that we call consciousness can only naturally emerge as the outcome of all that processing and cross communication.

In that sense, consciousness exists more along the axons and dendrites of the brain then in any particular part of the brain itself - but it's not something that could exist simply through the function of any particular sets of axons or dendrites or neurons.

Dec 23 2011:
The answer must be "Yes" for someone who rejects the existence of the supernatural. They must say that consciousnes is caused by chemical processes.
For someone who believes natural law cannot explain life, being, consciousness, etc. the answer must be "No". They must say that chemical processes are an effect of a supernatural cause.

Jan 2 2012:
A distinction like "supernatural" really has very little use in science. We all know a lot, and know that there still a vast number of things we DON'T know. That doesn't require that we have to assume Causality by chemical processes. In fact, its a very good bet that Consciousness is not caused by ANYTHING: would you say that Electricity is "caused" by something? I doubt you would. In other words, as a process, yes, but as to its existence, no.

Jan 2 2012:
Excuse me, but a distinction like "supernatural" does not have "very little use in science" as you say. . . .It has absolutely no use in science!
Either consciousness is chemistry, or it is not. If it is not then either: 1) it is uncaused (violating the law of causality), or 2) it is an effect of a cause which is not observable in the natural realm.
Is electricity caused you ask? Yes, The Law of Causality has not been repealed. Thanks Shawn.

Jan 3 2012:
hi, edward, what i think is that if we can scatter seeds of life that be able to replicate to find an environment and have the ability to form a conscious being to replicate then we realized that we are eternal, the most probable is that we will not see as the salmon, but we will have fulfilled our passion... what you think ed??

Jan 5 2012:
Edward : I agree with you that "supernatural" is a useless term , meaning, really, things we don't understand yet.
But "Consciousness Is either Chemistry " or not? I have never heard of any Law of
Causality" in the sense that you are using it, except in Theology , where it was used to attempt a proof of the existence of "God". As such, what it actually becomes is in the form of an Axiom : assumed as basic, but not having the ability, or the need, to be "proved" itself. Right out of Euclidean Geometry. Useful, but maybe not absolutely necessary.
I'm assuming, as I believe sciences still do, the basic terms of the discussion are going to be energy, waves, cycles, and correlations. with a big helping of constructed Theories to make sense of it all. "Chemistry" is not basic at all, since the components of the Periodic Table are no longer the "atoms" they once were considered to be , and Causality is more a Rule of Thumb than a "Law". I'm merely assuming , for the sake of theorizing, that Consciousness is going to turn out to be a more basic element than Westerners usually do; we are still hung up on this idea of a Newtonian particle Universe, which leads to a lot of confusion.

Jan 11 2012:
Causality is a metaphysical theory which has not been proved or disproved. It ties in with the concept of determinism versus chaos theory. According to the standard model there is a range of certainty that can be achieved when making predictions due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principal therefore stating the universe is less than deterministic but not completely chaotic on the average.

Jan 3 2012:
Edward, the most amazing thing is that people who believe in the supernatural are not willing to reconsider, while the majority of people who don't tend to continuously accept that they are learning something new. What makes someone believe that there is a supernatural phenomenon? As they experience that arrogance in their brain, it clearly is an illusion of that brain because without it they would not even be talking about it or communicating.

Scientist talk about theory despite some plausibility, while supernaturalists who have not done anything to add to human knowledge are certain that they know it all. Absolutely amazing, or what else is the explanation?

Jan 3 2012:
Sorry Max, I am not familiar with the term "supernaturalist." If by it you mean someone who rejects,denies, and opposes natural science, I am not that, and I don't know anyone who would be so arrogant, as you say. Science has taught us everything we know about the observable world around us. The scientific method is one of man's most beneficial tools.
Your logic has a Fallacy of Composition. You claim that what is true of some ("are unwilling to reconsider') is true of all (who believe in the supernatural). I believe in the supernatural and I spend much of my time reconsidering what I believe. If I discover an error in my treasury of truth, I discard it.
I guess your questions about the supernatural are rhetorical, but if you do want answers you will need to look beyond the natural, observable world. Science cannot, and should not try to, explain the supernatural. Be cool, Max, allow for the possibility that you are wrong about the supernatural, be willing to reconsider. Thanks.

Jan 3 2012:
Edward, thanks for the reply. I think it is quite obvious what is meant by a 'supernaturalist' and they come in many flavours. I have no problem with such opinion as long as they have no problem with mine.

I have made no such assertion that something would apply to everyone but yes, I did not explicitly allow for it. But I think there is little point in splitting hairs. My question was quite clear about the supernatural it is not fundamental because the supernatural only means that we have not yet a scientific explanation for it. I find a lot of plausibility in timeless actions at a distance in quantum physics, allowing many natural explanations for the supernatural. But the phenomenon as such are at a level that might stay out of reach of our certainty. It seems in fact that the essence of thus universe is about uncertainty. Many scientists take those thoughts as esoteric rubbish. That is their choice.

if science can not explain the supernatural I wonder what means you use to 'look beyond'. If it is a purely mental exercise that can't be replicated it is an illusion of our brain that produces a huge amount of practical illusions each day. You treasury of truth is such an illusion. We know nothing. Exactly my point.

So In everything I think and do I leave room for having a perception that is purely mine and possible not real and possibly not true at all. The supernatural would be inaccessible in this universe and thus not explainable but utterly irrelevant at the same time.

A belief in the supernatural that is 'beyond science' is just that and nothing else. If science shouldn't look it means you want it to be mystical and unexplained for some personal reason. It would be pity to find out it is not supernatural.

This is not meant as something personal. Just a discussion ... I would love to be convinced. So give it a try.

Jan 13 2012:
the supernatural is a characteristic implemented in the genetics that for that purpose the human being development in the search for a spreading and evolving into life, is bigger than us, but easier than we can understand in our complexity

Dec 23 2011:
the question is: is it possible that all in human body, as we know is made of the intermolecular changes, the similitude of these components is too close, is it possible that the inner impulse of 25% of human kind for smoking tobacco... is human kind creating a string capable of withstandind the high level of carbon monoxide in the future of the planet without knowledge of it?? thanks...

what I mean is that genetic intelligence is greater than the human intelligence... genetics is in fact who makes us survive, change and evolve and I think the human impulse is genetic, marked by the probability of error, to survival in the diversity and that according to these rules I can think of so many people desire to add cubic kilometers snuff smoke over generations in the lungs could create a strain capable of surviving the high levels of carbon monoxide (or any other element that does not like it) that is becoming more dense in the terrestrial environment, I do not believe in a sinister ends, I believe in a future set to the ranges of species and I think we can replicate it for this life we live, both individually as at the group level, this makes sense for you Gabo?

Jan 13 2012:
I can not dare to formulate that we work for bacteria although it is not a position that I reject, but the diversity I see makes me think that every part of human development creates diversity and that diversity is what keeps life
the relationship i see is that consciousness is the way to replicate life

Jan 13 2012:
Good discussion, Rafael. As we know, the more we discover in science, the more we know about "Magic". A great many things which formerly were magic, like lightning , are now still awe-inspiring, but no longer Magic. I don't see any good reason why the process should stop. As I said before, my own personal theory is that Consciousness is a basic Field in the Universe, like electric fields are. Therefore it could be expected to be pervasive, infinite in extent, but irregularly concentrated, also timeless and "conserved" It would almost seem not to exist is some places, like perhaps outer Space, but be very concentrated in places where there are suitable tubes, wiring, programs, energy etc. such as animal bodies. And as you suggest, maybe micro organisms as well. This is actually a very cheery thought, I would say; it would mean that you no longer have to worry about death, or alienation.

Jan 4 2012:
I would just change the idea into "physical-chemical" rather than only "chemical." But sure, consciousness is the result of physical-chemical reactions. An emergent property as some have advanced.

Yet, I would like to add that we define consciousness in many ways, and in our arrogance forget that many "primitive" reactions are also consciousness, whether we like it or not, just as many "mechanical" responses are also "logic."

A bacterium swimming towards or against a chemical gradient is using both fuzzy logic, and being "conscious" of the chemical gradient. Only we do those thing(s) in a much more complicated way. Because the "mechanics" are hidden from us under loads of complexity, we tend to think that our logics and consciousnesses are different. I tend to disagree.

I know, I know, I am oversimplifying ... but am I? Self-awareness might look as "another" thing, but come to think of it, it might not. After all, if the bacterium is swimming towards food, it is itself swimming, not something else. There seems to be no real boundary other than by our biased perception of each of these "human features."

Note that I am thinking these thoughts quite freshly. Not finished ideas at all.

I think I rather leave you alone and come later after chewing on these ideas a bit more. :)

Jan 5 2012:
Gabo: Good post. As for chewing on the ideas, do you know the Buddhists and Hindus have been chewing for a long time? Their terminology is ancient, but the scheme is very "scientific-ly" coherent, I would say. See Alan Watts' "The Book" for a clear exposition of this.

During my early years of exploration I kinda flirted with some kinda Buddhism, and it felt great. I still do a bit of meditation, but without the mumbo-jumbo. I took the benefits of learning to still the mind to give myself a rest.

Anyway, I am not talking magic in here. I am talking actual physical-chemical stuff going on that can easily be catalogued as consciousness and logic once we pass the anthropocentric barrier. I am making the point that we imagine our perceptions to be very different, but that I doubt they are. There is much more complexity for sure, but building upon simpler principles we have been able to explain a bit of a lot. Which is my way of saying that it is only our imagination that makes us think that we are the only conscious thing. The message is not thus about magic consciousness in Bacteria, but about the lack of magic in consciousness. Or perhaps the magic is that we are bound to be able to understand how these things work at our level and notice the continuum from what we perceive as "purely mechanic" (Chemotaxis in Bacteria), to what we perceive as some kind of mysterious and spiritual (human mind stuff).

Jan 13 2012:
bacteria containing the genetic information but also contains information on the environment in which it develops, in this sense the universe of this bacterium is what he knows and what not, so to us the universe as we know or do not. . I see what's interesting is that the evolution of humans has been found that as conciousness top of eukaryotic life, needs for living prokaryotes, but both come from a common ancestor with only 900.000.000 to 4,000,000,000 of years, I mean is that the bacteria can not leave earth without humans, so the human is the middle for bacteria to can spread it to her that it resists million years in space being able to replicate in the universe as surely as she has done before... is the fungus, which is capable of creating the zeta... and the zeta is the human kind
una bacteria contiene su informacion genetica pero tambien contiene informacion del medio en que se desarrolla, en ese sentido el universo de esa bacteria es lo que conoce y lo que no, asi como para nosotros el universo lo forma lo que conocemos o lo que no.. lo que yo veo interesante es que la evolucion del humano lo ha llevado a encontrar que como top de concienciaa de la vida eucariota, necesita a las procariotas para vivir, pero ambas vienen de un antepasado comun con solo 900 a 4000 millones de años, lo que quiero decir es que la bacteria no puede salir de la tierra sin el humano, por eso el humano es el medio de la bacteria capaz de esparcirla para que ella que si resiste millones de años en el espacio poderse replicar en el universo como seguramente ya lo ha hecho antes ella es el hongo, que esta creando la zeta capaz de esparcirla y la zeta es la raza humana... peace and wonder...

Jan 13 2012:
Gabo:Re Your idea about consciousness being "caused" by electro-chemical processes: by analogy, wouldn't you have to say then that , when considering an electric motor creating "power" that what is happening is that the wires , switches, etc. of the motor is "causing" electricity?! That is true in some practical sense, but I'm sure you would agree that as far a science theory is concerned, it is hopeless. When Lightning strikes a tree, the tree is not really "causing" the electricity. Not to say they aren't correlated. It would really simplify a great many peoples' lives if they thought of Consciousness in the same sort of way. I believe that Buddhists do, or al least that would be the implication.

Your last analogy is far off the mark. A tree struck by thunder is not producing but a burned tree. But sure in the first the wires, et cetera are "causing" electricity if that's how you want to phrase it.

Our mind is the results of physical-chemical processes. No way around. What else do you think I might be missing? This includes the positions, the shapes, the electricity, the gating, the proteins finding each other, the ion channels, the biochemical reactions, et cetera. So, what if not the result of all this would our consciousness be? I don't see any hopelessness in the science. I was once struck by the realization that a lot about how the mind works was been discovered by working on slugs. Not very hard experiments to perform by the way. I was disillusioned that there seemed not to be any need for a mayor technological break through. Just the finding of the proper experimental models, and there you go. Undeniably making molecular sense of what seems, at first glance, so complex and out of reach. But, if we think much more carefully about it, we might perceive our consciousness as "separate" from whatever we understand as "mechanics" in such living forms as Bacteria. But how can we be sure of that? There is a point of interpretation in the working of our minds that gives us the illusion of something else, but mechanics are there, and our perception might very well be the emergence of, perhaps very complex yet understandable, mechanics. I can't see why not.

She refers to a book by Philip Sheperd called New Self, New World. It is quite appropriate to use that book in order to see our almost universal bias towards intelligence/consciousness as only a head thing. Intelligence/consciousness is not just a head thing, it is a body thing too. I'm convinced, though there's no way to confirm this yet, that we are connections on an integrated system and that the consciousness we experience is a characteristic aspect of the relationships and connections on that integrated complex adaptive system. In other words we are not individual things unto ourselves located somewhere in the skull. It is my guess that there will never be an awake brain in a jar nor will there ever be an awake AI system without a system of relationships as rich as what we experience with each breath, heartbeat, sight, sound, and smell. (Add memory and forecasting prefrontal lobes for good measure.) The point is we exist in a context of experience and much of that experience is processed in our gut, and in an immediate context of emotion that, like the sounds we hear, can be dimmed and ignored, but not turned off.

I'm sorry. To answer your question: Yes, consciousness is a brain chemical reaction, but it's also a whole lot more. Do you feel me Rafa? [:-) Thank you so much for the question.
Mark

Jan 3 2012:
that is axactly what im talking abuot... but i think that now we are in top of development and we got to make a change, because we need to survive for the future... i think that is not easy finally get here, and we need to be responsible for our acts and develop a new organisn capable for travel in space for millions of years and be able to replicate in a new order of conscious life and I continue to evolve as they have done with us...
i fell you totally here with me... that is the why of this question
what do you think about this mark?

Jan 3 2012:
Hi Frans: your explanation made a lot of sense, but when you consider the evolution of the "organisms", which involve a whole gamut of creatures from amoebae to people , it appears that , although they may all share the same Buddhist "Consciousness", they don't necessarily share ideas about the Self, which I can tell you from my own experience, say at the age of 3, were not very focussed. . There doesn't seem any reason to distinguish personal consciousness from the "Self" except in the sense that Self is a complicated artifact, and perhaps C. iis the Raw material, or Background , or "Energy Field" to the artifact. You seem to require some sharp divide between "organisms" and machines, but that may not be true. The natural world is made up of elements, etc. "Organic" doesn't mean that they aren't constructed of the same kind of material. It may turn out that if "it quacks like at duck", etc. is they way it works; we don't know yet. Although it should be noted that to distinguiish "Living" from "Non-Living" thingsscientificallly is not as simple as some people would prefer.

Jan 2 2012:
In severe irreversible brain injury, there is no brain activity and therefore no *life* per se.....i.e. consciousness-awareness or awareness of consciousness.

Whether there is awareness that precedes or continues after the brain-death of the entity/person, I don't know. How could I? I can, however, point to the fact that we all are conscious of the same things, dependent on our abilities to perceive, cognize. So I can deduce from this that the map of consciousness is the same for everyone though the content and description is highly individual, based on many factors. .

Awareness seems to be what the universe is all about...from the smallest living thing, all creatures great and small are endowed with the rudiments of self-awareness: the will to survive. So we ARE our chemicals and much more.

Dec 27 2011:
It is so simple, see the deference between sleeping body and Coma body in his brain reaction nothing strange happened but the sleeping body wake up but the coma body not wake up that a proof there is something in a body controlling the brain, what is it? answer me?

Jan 3 2012:
it is chemical reactions, but it is not what im talking about, im talking about evolve, a person with half brain can be able to survive because of the capable that is in the genetic passion... thank you

Dec 25 2011:
Hi Rafael, I understand the question. I just do not understand, all the words? Okay, from what I have learned. No human, knows the brain. I think, we can continue, to drive ourselves, nuts, over your question! :)

Dec 24 2011:
Thanks for ask this question !
I believe that it's somehow impossible to answer this question.
But I think the science could "justify" brain's reactions with chemical materials etc.
And we can predict most of the human's reactions and design a system like brain with reverse engineering.
I believe that metaphysics is still a possible.
As possible as a car has a ghost.

"In his day, Alexander Shulgin explored consciousness through “the art of chemistry.” He synthesized a version of mescaline and invented other psychedelic drugs, experimenting on himself, before the era of government and university regulations. “Each material had to be learned, as a new meeting…. The beauty of the final results, finding out what the effects were, was that you couldn’t be wrong.” If he reported visual enhancements, and recall of memories, his data was “always a winner,” because it was mostly a matter of subjective experience. Shulgin rues the laws and propaganda against psychedelic drugs, because he believes these drugs would serve as a useful “probe to look at the function of mind.”

Dec 23 2011:
Yes, conciousness are electro-chemical reactions. Those that have occurred only in one place in the known universe. What could have caused it? Have we already. or could we even imagine a way to replicate it? What conditions could have caused these specific reactions to occur? Could it be that the whole universe had to be there in the way it is, just to give way to these specific reactions?

Dec 23 2011:
The theory of passion ...
The eternal life journey through the different moments of time and evolving with today's technology presents a prospective view, suggests an eternal progress that does not end as it believes in an apocalyptic catastrophe, but one that we have enough time to understand how life spread. Genetic engineering has advanced and will soon be generating the organisms that can incubate in a space voyage of thousands or millions of years and then evolve in different ways of life, when they have an environment and that is the current race of human technology and why has moved in that direction... and now the real test is to simplify the DNA so that one organism can survive interstellar travel insert the information so you can replicate in humans and all kind of organisms that will help between to evolve, which to the genetic load may lead to build civilizations as we consider only the present, but knowing the nature and the environment is as difficult as most likely to do a great dispersion, which will carry these new civilizations are not always near or reach similar levels of technology in times like that, that times we feel alone but there is a small detail, the most likely genetic in that work can be included flashes of memory that involves the need for such things to continue life, unconsciously, we all have those flashes equally, a galaxy or 100 trillion human cells as a push us to an uncontrollable force that makes us .. Genetic simple toys as the union of two connected cells that were never connected in a way that produces 100 trillion different cells that are not connected by anything apparently but can grow into an organism (in addition to much like the donor) that is capable of connecting with others and write music, paint and travel to a moon... I call it passion and it is what is made all

Dec 22 2011:
Nice thought but I don't think there is any association between the two.
The way humans became self aware is due to the development of spoken language.
In communicating the self is separated from the other.

Jan 3 2012:
Yes... I mean consciousness is built upon consciousness... like now We have decoded the genome of living beings on earth evolved, we found that living things on earth come from a single kind of organism (LUCA) ... indicating that if we make a wide dispersion of this type of element is very likely that life can be replicated elsewhere ... Now, genetic manipulation... that is the route and get to know what kind of element can travel through space thousands or millions of years to find an environment capable of hosting, which means that hardly have a similar evolution of technology and similar levels in the same time, and unless they are close to each other, so as we are today, and of course we will not survive that lot, yes, i think it is all genetic information, and i think is balanced as the cycle of salmon, that we have time enought to expand consciousness again.. as our ancestors done

Jan 6 2012:
I believe all organic life contains the element Carbon. Carbon, I believe it is found in many inorganic matter here on Earth as well as stars, other planets and thruout the observable universe. Is carbon the key element to unlocking the consciousness experience? or does consciousness have to be developed or evolved to be pondered as we humans are doing now? Does the omniverse have consciousness? Does consciousness evolve from our symmetrical anti-matter self in the 5th and 7th dimension? Do mathmatical equations arise from consciousness? Is consciousness beyond the descriptive labels language places on it? Whatever you believe, it's absolutely true for you.